- Joined
- Aug 9, 2009
- Posts
- 16,559
- Likes
- 9,051
- Location
- Perth
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth Demons, Liverpool
But you're sandwiching two questions together.
Let's say we lose a good player for pick 60 and we all know we've been shafted. But we somehow pluck a decent player with that late pick. That doesn't mean a shitty deal was actually a good deal. It just means we drafted well. The trade itself would still suck for us.
Hawthorn lost Clint Young to free agency and got a ridiculously low pick as compensation. Everyone agrees they got screwed. But if they end up drafting a decent player with that pick, does that mean they won the exchange?
Hell no, they still got shafted on the compensation. Should they end up finding a decent player with that pick, that is a separate issue. It won't mean that they got value for Young, though. The pick they got in return was still disastrously low, regardless of the quality of the player they end up using it on.
That won't change the fact we got unders for our player.
Actually, that's pretty much what it means. We lost a player we wanted and were poorly compensated. It was a bad deal for us. Period. Whatever happens with McInnes is a separate issue.
Let's say we lose a good player for pick 60 and we all know we've been shafted. But we somehow pluck a decent player with that late pick. That doesn't mean a shitty deal was actually a good deal. It just means we drafted well. The trade itself would still suck for us.
Hawthorn lost Clint Young to free agency and got a ridiculously low pick as compensation. Everyone agrees they got screwed. But if they end up drafting a decent player with that pick, does that mean they won the exchange?
Hell no, they still got shafted on the compensation. Should they end up finding a decent player with that pick, that is a separate issue. It won't mean that they got value for Young, though. The pick they got in return was still disastrously low, regardless of the quality of the player they end up using it on.
That won't change the fact we got unders for our player.
Actually, that's pretty much what it means. We lost a player we wanted and were poorly compensated. It was a bad deal for us. Period. Whatever happens with McInnes is a separate issue.
The point we disagree on is what constitutes a 'trade win'. Personally I think it's relevant what the drafted player goes on to become, and how it benefits the team both in the long and short term. Port still afforded us the opportunity to draft McInnes, even if they didn't hand him over directly. You can't just look at the picks involved in the trade and say 'okay yeah that's a win for that club'. You could use that approach to determine whether or not the trade was fair, but not which club got the better end of the deal overall.
I completely agree that the Ebert trade was slanted in Port's favour, we certainly got unders and it wasn't an equal exchange. However if McInnes becomes a better player than Ebert (not necessarily suggesting he will) then I still don't see how we could not have still managed to get the better of the exchange.
